From: "Phil Walden" <phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> Subject: RE: BHA: Bush, Blair + for Iraq War Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:31:29 +0100 Sorry, that link should have been www.socialistfuture.org.uk Phil Jamie, It is somewhat harsh to say of a work that it "utterly lacks a viable ontology" when that work has offered a much more explanatory ontology of world politics than the warmed up orthodox Leninist model of imperialism which has long been holy writ amongst most sections of the left. After so much collective neglect and bible-worship over such a long period of time, no book was ever going to produce a perfect or near-perfect ontology of world politics, but Hardt and Negri in that book took the debate forward by a quantum leap. Your own confusion in trying to deny the great and increasing extent to which capital flows have spiralled outside the control of the nation-state ironically shows just how important EMPIRE is. Your objection that there are no extended case studies is true but irrelevant because the point of the book was to make the *conceptual* case for "Empire", which for me it does convincingly. In fact in my experience it is the books with extended case studies and without philosophical and theoretical argument that are rather less than convincing (and often unreadable), because they have lost sight of the objective content of philosophy. I look forward to receiving your paper on EMPIRE and I will read it and may well comment on it. If you want to see an article by the Movement for a Socialist Future on EMPIRE go to www.socialistfuture.demon.co.uk and look for an article by Phil Sharpe. As for the notion that EMPIRE "does not sustain a concept of agency", I don't really understand you because EMPIRE gives people cogent political reasons for targetting the nefarious activities of the transnational corporations. As for stratification, as I said we need more ontologies of world politics and global capital to compare with EMPIRE, they couldn't do everything in one book. Best, Phil Phil, I would suggest that Empire utterly lacks a viable ontology, its account of a 'system' is so amorphous as tobe analytically useless - which perhaps explains why there is not a single extened case study exploration of the workings of any aspect referred to. One does not need to look to Empire for a concept of post-nation state IR - there are plenty and I wouldbe concerned that the move itself can be dangerous - nation states have never been the appropriate unit of analysis for IR - at the same time talk of post nation states falls to easily into the dangerous position that the poltical elites of powerful states are impotent in the face of ill-defined' global forces - fighting this argument is one of the important things involved in any anti-capitalist movement that addresses the neoliberal shift in risk etc towards the individual. I've written a paper on Empire recently - that needs some cleaning up - I'll send it to you at some point and if you have time you can let me know what you think. By differential of the system I mean that Empire cannot sustain a cocnept of agency or of stratification that would allow for interaction and transformation (as such it is a fatally flawed ontology) - part of the reason for this is its heavy reliance on (despite the attack on postmodernism) foucauldian imagery. Best, Jamie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Walden" <phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:21 AM Subject: RE: BHA: Bush, Blair + for Iraq War > Jamie you wrote: > What is your oppinion of Empire? Personally I found it fundamentally flawed. > It is explicitly non-dialectial, lacking in a viable sense of the > differentiation of system and unable to sustain an ontology to meet its > claims for the possibility of transformation (not to mention providing a > rather empty new form of theory of value). > > PW: I think EMPIRE is one of the of the most important books published in > this new millenium. Certainly it has its flaws, but imo it brilliantly put > forward an ontology of global capital that was a corrective to a > no-longer-valid orthodox Leninist theory of imperialism. What EMPIRE > brilliantly understands is that the flux and flow of global capital has for > some time become a force that cannot be controlled by the nation state (not > even by the United States). On the question of dialectics, I think there > are things that are undialectical about EMPIRE but that for me does not > detract from the usefulness of the work in terms of the new ontology of > world capitalism that it puts forward. What we really need are some more > new ontologies of world capitalism that we can compare with their one! I > don't know what you mean by "differential of system". Can you explain? > Also what is their "empty new form of theory of value"? > > Doesn't Kautsky's ultra-imperialism include the argument that capitalist > states will not go to war again and wasn't it, to his own embarassment, > published just after the start of WWI? > > PW: Well, Kautsky's argument when he made it certainly included the wrong > idea that capitalist states would not go to war. But I can't see anything > wrong with separating this falsehood out, and retaining the kernel of truth > of Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism. We extract good elements of wrong > theories all the time, don't we, as long as we find them explanatory and > helpful in the reality that we are in. What's the problem? > > What would you suggest were the mechanisms by which MNCs and world > powers/states/leaders come to focus on expansion of exploitative > opportunities - since this is the difficult question that seems to underpin > the long term significance of the issues of war and imperialism embedded in > the Iraq crisis? Does it fit with Hardt and Negri's argument that there is > no imperialist power anymore merely a logic of 'police action' disciplining > all participants in international relations? > > PW: To me the real question is: is it only on behalf of the US TNCs that it > is being done? If I am right you will shortly find that French and German > TNCs get a share of the contracts in Iraq. Your view would only be correct > if the United States' own TNCs were able to completely dominate and shut out > altogether French and German capital. We will see who is right very > shortly. By the way, I prefer the term TNC (transnational corporation) to > MNC (multinational capital) because I think TNC much more accurately > reflects the reality that capital flows are largely no longer under the > control of the nation state. > > yours, > Phil > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil Walden" <phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk> > To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 7:11 PM > Subject: RE: BHA: Bush, Blair + for Iraq War > > > > Carrol, > > > > I think you are underestimating the degree to which the world's great > powers > > are privately agreed with each other about what is to them the main aim - > to > > open up to the maximum degree all the world's populations to exploitation > by > > the transnational corporations. This is the content of imperialism in > this > > period, whereas you seem to be reducing inter-state relations to their > form > > (inter-imperialist rivalry). If that makes me an advocate of > > "ultra-imperialism" then so be it - that is how I see the ontology of > world > > capitalism. To this extent I think Negri's and Hardt's "Empire" is onto > > something (though I don't think they make any reference to old man > Kautsky's > > ultra-imperialism). > > > > Japan I think is relatively easily included in the schema I have set out > > above. But I do agree with you that there are lots of unknowns about > China > > and India. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > I think it is possible that rather more is eventually involved than the > > euro or culture. We live in a unipolar world in which bipolar (or > > tripolar) forces are gestating. The "French/German cultural bloc" should > > perhaps be seen as just the first steps towards a French/German/Russian > > political/military/economic entity confronting the u.s. empire. I do not > > believe the day of the nation state or of inter-imperialist rivalry is > > over by any means. Some are I think prematurely announcing that > > Kautsky's "Super-imperialism" has arrived at last. (This may be Blair's > > view.) > > > > (And I don't have the faintest idea where India or China or Japan might > > fit in such a developing rivalry.) > > > > Carrol > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005